Philosophers Views on Abortion - Case Study Example

 Philosophers Views on Abortion Introduction Abortion is the ever hotly debated among the moral and social issues; nonetheless, until to date, abortion has remained a powerful issue among philosophers. Most people who are against abortion argue that human life must be preserved. Moreover, there should be an absolute priority to the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother. However, some people especially those who support abortion have for centuries argued that the life of a mother is superior to that of the unborn; therefore, any life that put the life of the mother at any risk should be eliminated and the mother let to live. Regardless of the counter argument on abortion, it is not right, at any point in time, to conduct abortion since it constitutes to terminate life; however, under well-argued and justified ground it may be an option to save the mother's life. Regardless of the position one may take the arguments on abortion have proven to be extremely defensive and dogmatic. Furthermore, they concentrate on one perspective without looking at the whole issue in line with its psychological, moral, biological, and sociological complexity. Abortion is a difficult issue; however, it can be resolved if both sides of the debate look at the abortion arguments in open minds. Additionally, all the contributors and involved stakeholders must accept to work together towards the same goal without advance prejudice of the issue. Therefore, it is not advantageous if the entire human race to follow demagogic slogans that politically influence thinking on vital issues such as abortion; thus, human race must all time debate on these vital issues with rational, moral stands. Philosophers Views on Abortion The fundamental problem of abortion is the moral justification of the status of the fetus. The philosophical understanding has three basic positions upon which they advance their arguments including conservative, liberal, and moderate. The liberal position is the contribution of Judith Jarvis Thomson. In her contribution, Judith assumed that conservatives did not influence the ideals of their supporters. Contributing on the issue, Judith argues that the moral status of any fetus is at all times justifiable in varied cases (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 482). She created a situation where someone is kidnapped because of preserving life of unconscious violinist. Additionally, she argues that the living human beings are linked through sharing the same kidney. Therefore, if there is detachment between the kidneys of these two lives, before the end of the standard nine months of pregnancy, then the violinist automatically dies. According to Thomson, it is not an obvious obligation for humanity to share kidney with the unborn (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 582). Additionally, she argues that sharing of the kidney creates an analogue situation where the fetus uses the mother's body. Therefore, according to Thomson, abortion should be accepted and justified at all costs since the fetus only depends on the mother. She adds that abortion is justified in cases of rape, when a woman’s life is in danger, and when a woman has reasonable precaution to evade pregnancy. This reasoning may be considered patently false and exaggerated. In her argument, Thomson seems to disregard the distinctive character of the case that is the growing fetus. Even in rape cases, killing of the fetus is not justifiable; thus, it remains morally unacceptable. Nonetheless, rape is also morally condemnable. Relating Rose’s case in the “A Brain Dead Mother Gives Birth” case study, Thomson will advocate for the death of the fetus in a quite unconvincing circumstance (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard720). According to Thomson, the fetus is just, but a burden to the mother and in a situation where the mother’s life is at risk, the fetus must just be aborted. Other than Thomson, Mary Ann Warren also contributed on the liberal position. Warren analyzed the personhood concepts concerning abortion. In her argument, she commented that if a fetus is a person, then there are varied instances that abortion should never be permitted. However, the entire consideration will depend on what is considered a person. In her argument, she used a set of criteria of defining a person. According to Warren, she is a fully-fledged person with full moral responsibilities and status; therefore, she thinks that both argument that are pro and against abortion should be accepted (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 553). However, even applying her proposed criteria including the fetus has potential of being persons; there is no sufficient reason for people to have right to life. However, she concludes that, at least up to birth, fetus lack moral status; therefore, lacks a serious right to life. Her conclusion leads her to the realization that her argument followed a justification of infanticide. This concludes her where she asserts that newborn infants have no significant right to life; however, she would not allow infanticide, provided there are people who are able and willing to provide and take care of such children. The personhood concepts may only prevent abortion in the Rose’s case since there are people responsible to take care of the unborn at the time it has proven to a burden to the mother. Additionally, according to Warren, the fetus would have only been spared in cases where it could be considered a human being. Rose’s child is a moral being since she had already resembled a baby; therefore, she had a right to life. Therefore, it would be wrong, according to personhood principles, for Rose to have aborted. Thus, it was a right decision to have given the baby a chance to live. Comparing personhood principles applied herein, and the liberal position, the liberal position, could have justified the death of this child without any form of guilt. However, applying personhood could have to some degree given the same child under the same medical conditions of her mother a chance for survival. Regardless of the wide range of the acceptance of the personhood concepts, the conservative position regards the fetus to have full moral status; thus, they have serious right to life. Furthermore, John Noonan objects Thomson’s models as an unrealistic situation. Noonan used numerous models to disregard and dispute abortion. He disregarded the arguments that are pegged on the developmental stages. She regarded the developmental stages as arbitrary since there is continuity in the human being's development (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 576). However, he insists that the line can only be drawn at the pint of conception. According to his model, the fetuses often have an absolute right to life right from conception. In addition, he acutely objects abortion due to serious defection of the fetus as well as in cases of rape. According to him, such instances it will “eat up the rule”. He further rejects the doctrine of double effects especially to ectopic pregnancy cases and the cancerous fetus removal. Therefore, according to Noonan, any physicians who intends to conducts abortion is necessarily intending to kill. Primarily, according to the conservative position, abortion can only be permitted in cases when the fetus poses a danger in the life of the mother. Jane English who was primarily concerned with the personhood concepts postulated the moderate position. English notes that the ideals behind personhood concept just argued for the sake of arguing. Finally, she concluded her concepts and ideals in supporting the judgment of the United States' Supreme Court in line with its decision on the Wade vs. Roe's case of 1973. English argued that the concepts and ideals of the personhood are no enough ground and never decisive enough to create any impact on the solution to a controversial issue such as abortion. Furthermore, she argued that if conservative concepts that the fetus is a full-fledged individual are accepted, then there should be numerous cases where abortion will be conducted to prevent serious death or harm to the mother. Additionally, she adds that if the liberal concepts that the fetus is never a person are accepted, then there will be cases where even at later months of pregnancy, abortion may not be justified because the fetus resembles a person (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 612). These schools of thought may lead to psychological conditioning. In conclusion, English argued in the early stages of pregnancy when fetus hardly resembles a human being or a baby, then abortion may be justified in the interest of either the mother or her family. Moreover, abortion may be permitted in the middle months when the birth of the baby will cause harm including psychological, social, economic, or physical particularly to women and the family. Finally, at the later month, abortion may only be permitted when the birth of the baby may lead to serious injury or death of the mother. Notably, this philological understanding of the moderate position provides reliable and desirable grounds upon which abortion may not be regarded as sin, crime, or bridge of someone's right to life. Regardless of the English’s position pegged on the analyses of the personhood and liberal abortion principle if it could have been applied in the Rose’s mental situation it could have led to abortion of the kid (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 720). However, English could have only saved the life of the child by applying the critical situation of the middle period of the pregnancy. Despite these principles, the Rose could have just maintained the pregnancy since her medical problem was not because of the pregnancy. Maintain the pregnancy could have led to a healthier child than the almost weightless girl given birth to weeks earlier before the nine-month period. If Rose’s mental end problem was initiated with the pregnancy, the she was mean by allowing the early birth of the child; otherwise, the early birth was justifiable (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 720). Nonetheless, the brain problems should never leads to life termination of the infant; rather, it should affect the giving processes of the child. A person with brain problems may not be in a position to provide care to the kid since she may make irrational decisions that may diversely affect the entire life of the baby (DeGrazia, Mappes, and Brand-Ballard 720). Work Cited DeGrazia, David, Thomas A. Mappes, and Jeffrey Brand-Ballard. Biomedical Ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. Print. Read More